Implied terms - employers duties to employees:

Soalan 1 of 1

Waktu Kiri

Duty to provide work

Padankan teks (klik dan seret)

(0/0)

Padankan teks itu
collier v sunday referee publishing 1940
William hill organisation v tucker 1999
Herbert Clayton and Jack Waller V Oliver

Klik dan seret
contract of employment does not mean the employer has to provide work as long as the employee is getting paid
employee had given one months notice but contract stated he could not work for competitors within six months after termination of employment. Employer was under obligation to permit employee to work notice. and he did not have to work notice but could still receive the benefits.
Employer failure to permit employee to perform as contractually agreed had been held given rise to claims for harm of reputation.

Duty to take reasonable care for employees safety

Padankan teks (klik dan seret)

(0/0)

Padankan teks itu
Wilson and Clyde Coal V English
Hudson V Ridge Manufacturing 1957
Smith V Crossley Brothers
Bradford V Robinson 1967
Qualcast V Haynes 1959
Finch V Telegraph construction and maintenance 1949
General cleaning contractors V Christmas
Walker V Northumberland county council
Hartmen V South East Essex Mental health & community core NHS trust
Barber V Somerset County Council
James V Hepworth and Grandage
Smith V Austin lifts
Stokes V Guest keen and nettleford

Klik dan seret
social worker had a history of depression, after one incident where a child was killed, her hours increased and put her under pressure. She applied for ill-health retirement. However it is not a breach of care as she worked without problems for a number of years and there was nothing to indicate she could not cope with the workload.
Claimant had to drive his van 500 miles. His heater didn't work and his window was stuck open, he ended up with frostbite. The employer breached duty to take care because frostbite is preventable.
Social worker reported stress due to increased workload and suggested a restructuring of services, it was refused and the social worker had a nervous breakdown, he returned to work but had a second breakdown and had to retire. The employer failed to take reasonable steps to reduce stress and breached duty of care.
Teacher found new changes and increased hours stressful, he got little sympathy when he brought up his concerns and eventually suffered a nervous breakdown due to stress and depression. House of Lords found employer breached duty of care and was liable in negligence.
Miner was crushed by haulage plant while walking, he claimed damages. Employer argued that at the time of the accident the responsibility was delegated to the agent. It was found duty always rests on the employer.
Claimant fell while cleaning outside windows as he had no proper support , employer could have prevented the accident
As a practical joke, mechanics inserted a compressed air hose into co-workers bum causing serious injury. Employer was not liable because there was nothing the employer could have done to prevent "unpredictable" actions.
Employer had to ensure employee is aware of the amount of danger included in the job
Employee was injured when metal was thrown into his eye by a machine. Employer was sued due to failure to provide safety goggles.
employee could not read large signs requiring employees to wear PPE. Successfully claimed damages as employer did not consider the language barrier which prevented the employee from understanding the signs.
Claimant was injured when he splashed molten metal onto his foot, his employer provided protective footwear but did not ensure workers wore it.
Workmen persistently indulged in practical jokes (tripping) each other up. If a fellow workman is endangering fellow employees, the duty relies on the employer to remove the source of danger, by dismissal if necessary.
developed scrotum cancer due to exposure at work, the factory had known of the risk but failed to draw attention to the exposure or follow up medical examinations on workers.